685 
N542 
opv 1 



C|e $hfo-jafen. ^^ 

MEMORIAL TO THE PRESIDENT, 



PROTESTING AGAINST 



THE USE OF THE UNITED-STATES ARMY TO ENFORCE THE 
BOGUS LAWS OF KANSAS; 

THE ANSWER OF PRESIDENT BUCHANAN; 



THE RETLY OP THE MEMORIALISTS. 



[Note. — This Memorial, with the Reply and Rejoinder, involve principles altogether 
too important to be allowed to pass away as a mere newspaper controversy. For this reason, 
the whole is here presented for gratuitous circulation. It may aid the reader to judge of the 
justice of enforcing these laws, to state the vote by which the so-called bogus Legislature, 
which passed them, was chosen, as reported to Congress by the Commission sent by them to 
Kansas for the purpose of inquiring into the facts of the case. 

The whole number of Proslavery votes was 5,427 ; Free-state, 791. Of these, only 1,410 
were legal ; 4,908 were illegal. There is no pretence that the Free-state men cast any illegal 
votes; consequently this leaves but 619 legal votes given for this bogus Legislature. It also 
shows, that, although a large portion of the Free-state voters were driven from the polls by the 
army of invasion from Missouri, they yet had a plurality of 172 of the legal votes cast, and 
were thus legally entitled to the Legislature. Notwithstanding this fact, as well as the ad- 
ditional fact that the Constitution of the United States provides, in Article 4, Section 4, that 
" the United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government, and 
shall protect each of them against invasion," we find the army of the United States made use 
of, not to protect a State or Territory from invasion, but to support the invaders.] 



MEMORIAL. 

The undersigned, citizens of the United States, and electors of the State of 
Connecticut, respectfully offer to your Excellency this their Memorial. The 
fundamental principle of the Constitution of the United States, and of our political 
institutions, is, that the people shall make their own laws, and elect their own 
rulers. We see with grief, if not with astonishment, that Gov. Walker, of 
Kansas, openly represents and proclaims that the President of the United States 
is employing, through him (Walker), an army, one purpose of which is to force 
the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor of the United States, but 
(awe which — it is notorious, and established upon evidence — they never made, 
and rulers they never elected. We represent, therefore, that, by the foregoing, 
your Excellency is openly held up and proclaimed, to the great derogation of our 
national character, as violating in its most essential particular the solemn oath 









2 

which the President has taken to support the Constitution of this Union. We 
call attention further to the fact, that your Excellency is in like manner held up 
to this nation, to all mankind, and to all posterity, in the attitude of "levying war 
against a portion of the United States," by employing arms in Kansas to uphold a 
body of men, and a code of enactments, purporting to be legislative, but which 
never had the election nor sanction nor consent of the people of the Territory. 
AVe earnestly represent to your Excellency that we also have taken the oath to 
obey the Constitution ; and your Excellency may rest assured that we shall not 
refrain from the prayer that Almighty God will make your administration an 
example of justice and beneficence, and with his terrible majesty protect our peo- 
ple and our Constitution. 



THE PRESIDENT'S REPLY. 

AVashington, Aug. 15. 

Gentlemen, — On my recent return to this city, after a fortnight's absence, 
your Memorial, without date, was placed in my hands through the agency of Mr. 
Horatio King, of the Post-office Department, to whom it had been intrusted. 
From the distinguished source whence it proceeds, as well as its peculiar character, 
1 have deemed it proper to depart from my general rule in such cases, and give 
to it an answer. You first assert that the " fundamental principle of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and of our political institutions, is, that the people shall 
make their own laws, and elect their own rulers." You then express your grief 
that I should have violated this principle, and, through Gov. Walker, have employed 
an army, " one purpose of which is to force the people of Kansas to obey laws not 
their own, nor of the United States, but laws which — it is notorious, and esta- 
blished upon evidence — they never made, and rulers they never elected;" and, 
as a corollary from the foregoing, you represent that I am "openly held up and 
proclaimed, to the great derogation of our national character, as violating in its 
most essential particulars the solemn oath which the President has taken to sup- 
port the Constitution of this Union." These are heavy charges, proceeding from 
gentlemen of your high character, and, if well founded, ought to consign my name 
to infamy. But, in proportion to their gravity, common justice, to say notliing of 
Christian charity, required, that, before making them, you should have clearly 
ascertained that they were well founded. If not, they will rebound with wither- 
ing condemnation upon their authors. Have you performed this preliminary duty 
towards the man, who, however unworthy, is the Chief Magistrate of your coun- 
try ? If so, either you or I are laboring under a strange delusion. Should this 
prove to be your case, it will present a memorable example of the truth that poli- 
tical prejudice is blind even to the existence of the plainest and most palpable 
historical facts. To these facts let us refer. When I entered upon the duties of 
the Presidential office, on the 4th of March last, what was the condition of Kan- 
sas ? This Territory had been organized under the Act of Conj_ r res> of the 30th 
of May, 1854; and the Government, in all its branches, was in full operation. 
A Governor, Secretary of the Territory, Chief Justice, two Associate Justices, a 
Marshal, and District Attorney, had been appointed by my predecessor, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, and were all engaged in discharging 
their respective duties. A code of laws had been enacted by the Territorial 
Legislature; and the Judiciary were employed in expounding and carrying those 
laws into effect. 



It is quite true that a controversy had previously arisen respecting the validity 
of the election of the members of the Territorial Legislature, and of the laws passed 
by them ; but, at the time I entered upon my official duties, Congress had recognized 
this Legislature in different forms, and by different enactments. The delegate elected 
to the House of Representatives under a Territorial law had just completed his 
term of service on the day previous to my inauguration. In fact, I found the 
Government of Kansas as well established as that of any other Territory. Under 
these circumstances, what was my duty ? Was it not to sustain this Government ; 
to protect it from the violence of lawless men, who were determined either to 
rule or ruin; to prevent it from being overturned by force; in the language 
of the Constitution, to ''take care that the laws be faithfully executed"? 

It was for this purpose, and for this alone, that I ordered a military force to 
Kansas, to act as a posse comilatus in aiding the civil magistrate to carry the laws 
into execution. The condition of the Territory at the time, which I need not 
portray, rendered this precaution absolutely necessary. In this state of affairs, 
would I not have been justly condemned had I left the Marshal, and other officers 
of a like character, impotent to execute the process and judgments of the courts 
of justice established by Congress, or by the Territorial Legislature under its 
express authority, and thus have suffered the Government itself to become an 
object of contempt in the eyes of the people? And yet this is what you designate 
as forcing " the people of Kansas to obey the laws, not their own, nor of the 
United States," and for doing which you have denounced me as having violated 
my solemn oath. 

I ask, What else could I have done, or ought I to have done ? Would you have 
desired that I should abandon the Territorial Government, sanctioned as it had 
been by Congress, to illegal violence, and thus' renew the scenes of civil war and 
bloodshed which every patriot in the country had deplored? This would indeed 
have been to violate my oath of office, and to fix a damning blot on the character 
of my administration. I most cheerfully admit that the necessity for sending a 
military force to Kansas to aid in the execution of the civil law reflects no credit 
upon the character of our country. But let the blame fall upon the heads of the 
guilty. Whence did this necessity arise ? A portion of the people of Kansas, 
unwilling to trust to the ballot-box, — the certain American remedy for redress 
of all grievances, — undertook to create an independent government for them- 
selves. 

Had this attempt proved successful, it would, of course, have subverted the 
existing government prescribed and recognized by Congress, and substituted a 
revolutionary government in its stead. This was usurpation of the same charac- 
ter as it would be for a portion of the people of Connecticut to undertake to 
establish a separate government within its chartered limits for the purpose of 
redressing any grievance, real or imaginary, of which they might have complained 
against the legitimate government. Such a principle, if carried into execution, 
would destroy all lawful authority, and produce universal anarchy. I ought to 
specify more particularly a condition of affairs, which I have embraced in general 
terms, requiring the presence of a military force in Kansas. The Congress of the 
United States had most wisely declared it to be the true intent and meaning of 
this act, — the act organizing the Territory, — not to legislate slavery into any 
Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave it to the people thereof, per- 
fectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Constitution of the United States. As a natural consequence, 
Congress has also prescribed by the same act, that, when the Territory of Kansas 
shall be admitted as a State, it shall be received into the Union with or without 
slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe at the time of their admission. Sla- 
very existed at that period, and still exists, in Kansas, under the Constitution of the 
United States. 



This point has at last been decided by the highest tribunal known to our laws. 
How it could ever have been .seriously doubted is a mystery. If a confederation 
of sovereign States acquire a new Territory at the expense of their common 
blood and treasure, surely one set of the parties can have no right to exclude the 
other from its enjoyment, by prohibiting them from taking into it whatsoever is 
recognized to be property by a common Constitution. But when the people — 
the bona fide residents of such Territory — proceed to frame a State Constitution, 
then it is their right to decide the important question for themselves, whether they 
will continue, modify, or abolish slavery. To them, and to them alone, does this 
question belong, free from all foreign interference. In the opinion of the Territo- 
rial Legislature of Kansas, the time had arrived for entering the Union ; and they 
accordingly passed a law to elect delegates for the purpose of framing a State 
Constitution. This law was fair and just in its provisions. It conferred the right 
of suffrage upon every bona fide inhabitant of the Territory; and, for the purpose 
of preventing fraud, and the intrusion of citizens of near or distant States, most pro- 
perly confided this right to those who had resided therein three months previous to 
the election. Here a fair opportunity was presented for all qualified resident citizens 
of the Territory, to whatever organization they might have previously belonged, 
to participate in the election, and to express their opinions at the ballot-box on 
the question of slavery ; but numbers of lawless men still continued to resist the 
Territorial Government. They refused either to be recognized or vote ; and 
members of the Convention were elected legally and properly, without their inter- 
vention. 

The Convention will soon assemble to perform the solemn duty of framing a 
Constitution for themselves and their posterity ; and, in the state of incipient 
rebellion which still exists in Kansas, it is my imperative duty to employ the 
troops of the United States, should this become necessary, in defending the Con- 
stitution against violence whilst framing the Constitution, and in protecting the 
bona fide inhabitants qualified to vote under the provisions of this instrument in 
the free exercise of the rights of suffrage, when it shall be submitted to them 
for their approbation or rejection. I have entire confidence in Gov. Walker that 
the troops will not be employed except to resist actual aggression, or in the execu- 
tion of the laws, and then not until the power of the civil magistrate shall prove 
unavailing. Following the wise example of Mr. Madison towards the Hartford 
Convention, illegal and dangerous combinations, such as that of the Topeka Con- 
vention, will not be disturbed, unless they shall attempt to perform some act which 
will bring them into actual collision with the Constitution and the laws; and, in 
that event, they shall be resisted and put down by the whole power of the 
Government. In performing this duty, I shall have the approbation of my own 
conscience, and, as I humbly trust, of my God. 

I thank you for the assurance that you will not refrain from prayer that the 
Almighty God will make my administration an example of justice and beneficence. 
You can greatly assist me in arriving at this blessed consummation, by exerting 
your influence in allaying the existing sectional excitement on the subject of sla- 
very, which has been productive of much evil, and no good ; and which, if it could 
succeed in attaining its object, would ruin the slave as well as his master. This 
would be a work of genuine philanthropy. 

Every day of my life I feel how inadequate I am to perform the duty of my 
high station, without the continued support of Divine Providence ; yet, placing 
my trust in him, and in him alone, I entertain a good hope that he will enable me 
to do equal justice to all portions of the Union, and thus render me an humble 
instrument in restoring peace and harmony among the people of the several 
States. 

Yours very respectfully, 

James Buchanan*. 



REPLY TO THE PRESIDENT. 



To his Excellency James Buchanan, 

President of the United States. 

In July last, a number of citizens of Connecticut addressed to you, as Chief 
Magistrate of this nation, a Memorial on the affairs of Kansas. To this you 
replied, under date of Aug. lo, 1857, in a manner which shows that you mis- 
understood, to some extent, the ground taken by the Memorialists ; for we would 
not impute to you the intention to misrepresent them. As you have thought 
proper to lay the Memorial and Reply before the public, a large part of the 
Memorialists have conferred on the subject, and have felt themselves compelled 
again to address you. We would remark, then, that the main facts alleged in 
that Memorial are either passed over without denial, or are explicitly avowed 
in your Reply. 

These facts are two : First, " That the fundamental principle of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and of our political institutions, is, that the people shall 
make their own laivs, and elect their own rulers." Secondly, " That Gov. Walker, 
of Kansas, openly represents and proclaims, that the President of the United 
States is employing, through him (Walker), an army, one purpose of which is 
to force the people of Kansas to obey laws which are not their own, nor of the 
United States, but laws which — it is notorious, and established upon evidence — 
they never made, and rulers they never elected." As to these two facts, — the 
material facts alleged by your Memorialists, and which chiefly require vindication 
from you, — they say that they find no denial of them in your Reply. They do 
not say that you have attempted no vindication of your acts and doings through 
Gov. Walker ; but only, that they can find in your Reply no plain or explicit 
denial of the facts referred to, not even what they consider the shadow of a de- 
nial. These facts stand in the Memorial, then, uncontradicted by what you 
evidently consider a triumphant Reply. Why is this ? Are these assertions, 
on which the whole subject at issue depends, untrue, and yet no denial of them, 
— not a word to prove them untrue? Without such denial, what can you expect 
your Memorialists and the country to believe and to say ? — what, but that the 
facts which they allege are notorious and undeniable? 

As to the allegation respecting the fundamental principle of the Constitution, 
your Memorialists hope that the time is remote when the enlightened citizens of 
this country will deny that principle ; though party zeal, in its infatuation, may 
one day trample it in the dust ; when, in sight of the ruin, Liberty and Religion 
in exile will together weep over the desecration. 

Your formal vindication next demands notice. 

Of this, your Memorialists are compelled to say, that, in their view, it is 
entirely groundless and unsatisfactory. 

Resting it solely on what you call " the plainest and most palpable historical 
facts," you say, that, at the time of your inauguration, "you found, in fact, the 
government of Kansas as well established as that of any other Territory." You 
then ask, "Was it not my duty to sustain this government; to prevent it from 
being overturned by force ; in the language of the Constitution, k to take care that 
the laws be faithfully executed ' ? " You then add, " It was for this purpose 
that I ordered a military force to Kansas, to act as a posse comitatus in aiding the 
civil magistrates to carry the laws into execution." Here, then, is the distinct 
admission and declaration, on your part, that you ordered a military force to 
Kansas for the purpose of sustaining its territorial government, and of enforcing 

1* 



its territorial laws. So far, then, in respect to one matter of fact, you admit the 
assertion of your Memorialists. 

Your vindication, therefore, rests upon the assertion that there was, in fact, a 
government in Kansas, — such a government as it was your duty to sustain. 
The essential question, on which the whole controversy turns, is thus raised. It 
is simply this : Was there a government, or were there laws, in Kansas, in the just, 
proper, and authorized meaning of the language, "when you entered upon the 
duties of the Presidential office on the 4th of March last"? 

If this can be proved to be true, your Memorialists will know something 
which they have yet to learn. If it can be proved not to be true, " it will present 
a memorable example of the truth, that political prejudice is blind even to the 
existence of the plainest and most palpable of historical facts." Nor is this all: 
it will show that you ordered an army to Kansas to sustain a so-called govern- 
ment which is not a government, and laws which are not laws. 

Here your Memorialists take the position, that nothing can be truly 

GOVERNMENT Oil LAW WHICH HAS NO AUTHORITY; and that NOTHING SHOULD 
BE TREATED AS GOVERNMENT OR LAW WHICH PRESENTS NO EVIDENCE OF 
AUTHORITY. 

Can any thing which tramples under foot all human rights, and is a known 
outrage upon our Constitution and our political institutions, whatever be its name 
or form, be justly regarded as government or law having authority under our 
Constitution ? Can such an outrage be clothed with authority by a President, 
Senate, Congress, or a whole Congress of Presidents ? Can usurpation beget a 
valid government or law, or impart that right to govern which implies an obliga- 
tion to obey ? Its might may make it a matter of prudence to avoid its wrath by 
submission; but can usurpation create an obligation to obey, when none exists? 

Suppose the Great Mogul, or any other tyrant, had established the same so- 
called government and laws of Kansas by the same means by which, as all the 
world knows, they were established, — by invasion and arms: would any citizens 
of the United States call them "government and laws," except in derision and 
with loathing? Is a bogus government, government? Are bogus laws, laws? 
Is this " government established," and are these " laws enacted," and yet known to 
possess no other or higher authority than that derived from Border Ruffians? 
Are " we, the people of the United States," to be stultified into the belief of such 
a dogma? For that re.-ult, wait at least for the more absolute dominion of a 
tyrant. 

Your Memorialists will now present what they consider the fundamental 
error of your Reply. In their view, in recognizing the territorial government 
and laws of Kansas as a genuine government and valid laws, you have perverted 
the general principle upon which you rest your vindication, and have violated its 
essential spirit and meaning. 

That general principle may be thus stated : When rules of action, claiming to 
be valid laws, present, on the first aspect, evidence that they proceed from a 
rightful law-making power, it is the duty of the people and the executors of law 
to recognize them as authoritative. To this, as a general principle, your Memo- 
rialists subscribe. It is the only means of giving practical authority to law, and 
of preventing violence and anarchy; nor do they yield to any man or class of 
men a higher estimate of its importance, or a firmer determination to adopt and 
defend it, than themselves cherish. But to say that all governments and all 
laws, claiming to be valid, must be recognized, executed, and obeyed as such, is 
as preposterous as to deny the general principle itself. To mistake the general 
rule for an universal rule, the conditional for an unconditional principle, must lead 
to false reasoning and to practical conclusions of the most dangerous character. 
This, in the view of your Memorialists, who believe that none are too wise or 
good to err, is what you (they trust, inadvertently) have done. 



7 

In recognizing the territorial government and laws so authoritative, have you 
not violated the whole spirit and meaning of the general principle laid down? 
Have you not wholly disregarded the essential condition, that the only govern- 
ment which it is your duty to sanction must present some evidence of rightful 
authority? You recognize the territorial laws as valid. What is this but to act 
upon the principle, that when the so-called government and laws come before you, 
without the shadow of evidence of their proceeding from a rightful law-making 
power, but with the most decisive and overwhelming proof that they have 
originated in a palpable and violent usurpation, that even then, even in a case 
so flagrant, it is your duty to sustain and execute them, even by the armies of 
the United States? 

Your Memorialists are here anxious to call your attention to an important 
distinction, which you appear entirely to overlook. They readily concede, that, 
in cases of no unfrequent occurrence, one government may properly recognize. 
another as authoritative, or as a government de facto, on a very low degree of 
evidence, without rigidly investigating its authority, or even considering its origin. 
For example, the Government of Great Britain, when Louis Napoleon was 
enthroned in France by the army of the empire, and with the acquiescence and 
consent of the people, had no right to interfere with a government thus " esta- 
blished." The British, as a foreign government, had no right of question or 
control in the matter. But does it follow, because the Government of Great Bri- 
tain had no right to interfere with what was an undeniable usurpation in a foreign 
kingdom, that the Government of the United States had no right, and were not 
bound, to interpose and put down, in one of their own Territories, a ruffian usur- 
pation from Missouri ? In respect to France, there was reason enough why other 
nations, for purposes of nationcd intercourse, should recognize its present govern- 
ment as an " established government." But is not the Constitution of the United 
'.Jtates the supreme law of the land? Has not our Government the right tc. 
authorize and regulate the government of its own Territories ? Can Congress or 
the President abandon this right, or the duty which arises from it? If this 
Government owes any duty whatever to the country, is it not most sacredly 
bound to protect both State and Territory against the imposition of a government 
and laws by a ruffian and violent invasion from another State? Your Memorial- 
ists, then, strenuously insist that the only principle on which recognition can 
ever be justified is that there is some evidence, be it more or less, that the govern- 
ment PROCEEDS FROM AX AUTHORIZED LAW-MAKING POWER. And they further 

insist, that when such government is within our own borders, under the supervision 
and control of the Federal Government, and claiming to derive all its sanction 
from a law of Congress, the evidence of its authority must be clear and 
decisive. But how is it when there is no such evidence? How is it when all 
the evidence is strong against its authority ? How is it when there is the best 
evidence the case admits of, even decisive, unquestionable proof, that the so-called 
government has no other authority than ruffianism and outrage? Is such a 
" government" to be practically recognized, and that, too, within the limits of our 
own republic? There surely may be cases in which it would be gross wrong to 
Bustain a Territorial Government which has no authority. And now, we ask, 
what government could you refuse to sustain, if not one that had its origin 
solely in a violent invasion of ruffians from another State ? This fact, in the 
present case, can be denied ; so can God, when his sun shineth in the hea- 
vens. 

This usurped Government cannot be sanctioned by the law of Congress autho- 
rizing the formation of a Territorial Government. That law declares that " the 
true intent and meaning of this act is to leave the people (of the Territory) per- 
fectly free to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to 
the Constitution of the United States." To the people, and them alone, it 



8 

expressly gives the right to make their own government and laws. Here is no 
sanction, no authority, for a government not framed by the people, but founded 
solely on invasion. Can this law enthrone in rightful sovereignty bandits from a 
neighboring State ? As well say that it authorized them to seize every acre of 
Kansas for their own use and behoof. It can as well deprive the people of one 
right as of another, of all rights as of one. It is said " that Congress authorized the 
establishment of a government." Yes ; but by the people, not by marauders. It 
is further said, " that we must adhere to a general principle." What principle ? 
Why, as your whole argument implies, "that a government established" is a 
government to be recognized. We deny such a government in Kansas. Beware 
how you stretch a general principle, and make it universal. Though one may 
safely pass the Niagara River at all other points and places, none but a madman 
would attempt the passage on the verge of the cataract ! 

Your Memorialists urge, therefore, that the so-called Government of Kansas can 
claim no sanction from the Act of Congress. The evidence was all against it, — evi- 
dence known to the whole civilized world, apparent on the very face of the transaction, 
and which must have challenged your attention long before you had taken the oath 
of office. The very fact that the so-called Government required support from the 
Federal Executive was the strongest evidence that it did not come from the peo- 
ple, and had no lawful authority. This shows, at once, that this Government was 
not, in the lowest sense, what you call an " established government ; " for it shows 
that it was not, and could not be, established without a United-States army : and 
therefore the army was sent, not, as you pretend, to sustain " an established 
government," but for the pux-pose of establishing what was not established, — a gov- 
ernment of ruffian authority. 

Nor could you have been ignorant that the House of Representatives had sent 
a special Committee of Investigation to the Territory, and thus acknowledged and 
confirmed the propriety of a strict inquiry into this very case. On the report of 
that Committee, the House of Representatives authoritatively declared that the 
Government of Kansas was established by the terror of bowie-knives and revolv- 
ers, and that it had been proved to have not a shadow of authority. And here 
your Memorialists ask, whether a plainer case or stronger evidence can well be 
imagined. When, if not in such a case, ought the President to denounce a 
government as spurious, and to refuse to aid or sustain it ? The laws of Con- 
gress trampled in the dust ; the invaders from Missouri proved, beyond a cavil, 
to be the only authors of this " government," — is it not an outrageous wrong to 
hold Kansas subject to such usurpation by a United-States army ? The fires of 
ruffianism still burn there, smothered in the dreariness of their own desolation, 
and ready to be rekindled in their fury by the slightest movement for liberty and 
right on the part of the people ; while the echo of their sufferings ever rings in the 
ears of our National Executive. 

Let it be remembered, that this government comes to the people of Kansas 
not with the sanction of gray antiquity ; nor yet has it come from any law of 
Congress as its true and proper source, nor yet from the people of the Territory, 
nor yet from being even fully established. It is of recent origin and formation. 
It dates only from the imposition of it, by the ruffianism from Missouri, upon the 
people who abhor and disown it. Every man who has, from the first, known its 
existence, has known its origin and its nature. Let it, then, be taken as it is, — as 
it is in its origin and its nature. And what is it ? A code of laws oppressive, 
unjust, cruel, outrageous, without a parallel, created, imposed, by the usurpation 
of ruffians from Missouri. And these laws, and this " government," without the 
least evidence to establish their authority, but with the most abundant proofs to 
the contrary, you are proposing to sustain and execute by the United-State-; 
army. You speak of " numbers of lawless men," &c. ; alluding, evidently, to the 
Topeka Convention. Be it so, for the sake of the argument ; but how does one 



"lawless attempt" to establish a government justify or palliate another lawless 
attempt for the same purpose? 

Further: in your Reply, you seem to your Memorialists to concede, in all its 
truth and force, the principle which they maintain. Thus you unequivocally and 
justly assert, that " for a portion of the people of Connecticut to undertake to 
establish a separate government within its chartered limits for the purpose of 
redressing any grievance, real or imaginary," would be usurpation ; and add, that 
"such a principle, carried into execution, would destroy all lawful authority, and 
produce universal anarchy." Your Memorialists fully subscribe to this doctrine. 
But what is the act which you call usurpation in the case supposed? What is it 
but setting up a government claiming authority, and laws demanding execution, 
which, in the nature of the case, can claim no authority, and are opposed to 
existing authority ? If you would call this " usurpation " in Connecticut ; if it 
would "destroy all legal authority, and produce universal anarchy," — what is this 
but the very act which Missouri invaders have perpetrated in Kansas? There 
was government in Kansas, — government under the Constitution of the United 
States. Law was there also, — a law for the organization of government by the 
people of the Territory. Right, too, was there, — the inviolable right of the 
people to make their own laws, and elect their own rulers. In opposition to 
the existing government, in violation of that existing law, trampling upon those 
inherent rights, Missouri invaders have set up a bloody tyranny, which has, in 
fact, produced anarchy and bloodshed. If you condemn the one, condemn the 
other also. Your Memorialists have nothing to ask of you in this matter but 
consistency of principle. Condemn the same conduct in both cases : put down 
the usurpation in Kansas, and the friends of truth, justice, and of the country, 
would rejoice. 

Your Memorialists again ask, whether a case can well be imagined to which 
the name of authoritative government could be applied with more palpable im- 
propriety and untruth than to the Territorial Government of Kansas. Might 
not even political shamelessness blush to call it by such a name ? Was not the 
true and only character of this government known to you and the whole country 
before your inauguration, and during the Presidential canvass? Did you not, 
with the full knowledge of it, accept your nomination, which you were free to 
decline, and thus avoid the responsibility of executing these nefarious laws ? or 
did you suppose that the oath of office would exempt you from this responsibility ? 
You admit the constitutional duty of the President to "take care that the laws 
be faithfully executed." And now, without holding you responsible for any acts 
of your predecessor, — for which you are not willing to be responsible, and have 
not fully sanctioned, — your Memorialists would ask, Was there no law to be taken 
care of, by preventing a well-known projected invasion of the political rights of the 
people of Kansas ; no law to be taken care of afterward, by expelling the invaders 
from the Territory ; no law to be taken care of in respect to the thefts, the robberies, 
the incendiarism, and the murders that were perpetrated ; no law to be taken 
care of in the mode of civil administration adopted by Federal officials ; no law 
to be taken care of in not appointing officials whose hands were red with the 
innocent blood, or in removing bribed and perjured judges ; no law to be taken 
care of by securing to the people of the Territory that fundamental right of the 
Constitution, — a right guarded by an express law of Congress, — the right "to 
make their own laws, and elect their own rulers ; " no law to be taken care of in 
giving to Congress information at least of the state of the Union, and especially 
in recommending necessary and expedient measures for the relief of the people 
of Kansas from the injustice, the oppression, and the barbarities to which they 
were subjected ? Had, then, Great Britain any such laws to take care of in 
France, when the present Emperor was enthroned there by usurpation, as those 
which our Government, our President, w r as bound to take care of in our own 



10 

Territory? In utter neglect of these laws, have you not, with a full knowledge 
of the nature of* this usurpation, its origin, its progress, its violation of Constitution 
and of fundamental rights, its violence, its rapine, its massacres, its conflagra- 
tion, and its shame, sustained at every step its authors and abetters to this hour? 
Have you not sanctioned such conduct by placing or retaining prominent leaders 
therein in official stations? 

Again: are the troubles and calamities of Kansas the legitimate results of the 
wise administration, of the true and right working in such an exigency, of our 
National Government? — the most perfect specimen of human government the 
world has seen ; to our own admiration, the perfection of excellence. Surely 
such results bespeak some derangement, some disturbing force, in the evolutions 
of a machinery so fitted to do good, so powerful to its high design. 

But if your example in administration, and that of your predecessor in office, 
are to be followed in future, whenever similar cases shall occur; if every usurpa- 
tion of power, when it has gained a temporary success, is thenceforth to be backed 
by the whole power of the Federal Government, and forced upon the indignant peo- 
ple on whom, by fraud or violence, it had imposed itself, — where will the end be? 
How often will such crises actually occur, resulting from the vei'y nature of our Go- 
vernment, with such a principle in its administration to originate and foster them ? 
What a temptation to party-spirit, thus unrestrained, emboldened, upheld by the 
Government of the nation, would be furnished to carry out its schemes and its 
triumphs in violence and bloodshed! What shall hinder? Let the administration 
of the Government change hands, — and such changes may be frequent, — how 
surely would the same contests be re-enacted by way of reprisals for past injuries 
and oppressions ! How would such contests be repeated in Territories and in 
States, till to your own mind would be revealed, in the very principle which you 
assume, a weakness in our Government foretelling its speedy dissolution ! 

Of the particular considerations by which you have endeavored to support 
the fundamental principle of your Reply, the first which demands notice is, that, 
" when you entered upon your official duties, Congress had recognized the Legis- 
lature (of Kansas) in different forms, and by different enactments." Had you 
informed your Memorialists what these "different enactments" were, they might 
have been made the subject of distinct examination. As it is, they can only say 
that they know of no " forms or enactments " of Congress, which could be binding 
on you as authoritative, of which you had reason even to regard as evidence of 
the validity of that Legislature. Do you refer to the act by which the usual 
appropriations from the treasury were made? Every one knows in what manner 
and for what reason that act was passed, and that many who voted for it regard- 
ed, and still regard, the Territorial Legislature as downright usurpation ; nor had 
they any suspicion that they were recognizing its validity. How this bill can 
invest an act of usurpation with authority, your Memorialists are unable to dis- 
cover. What if the Legislature of Connecticut had, under the excitement of 
party strife, even by a formal act, recognized the usurpation which you have 
supposed : might not the Governor justly fall back upon his own official preroga- 
tive, call out the militia, and suppress the rebellion? If he would be bound to 
recognize such an usurpation as government having authority, when could he 
ever suppress it without himself becoming a rebel against the very authority 
which he recognizes ? Apply this illustration to the President of the United 
States, and you will see that the fundamental principle of all your reasoning is 
absolutely suicidal, and thus renders nugatory your entire vindication. Did not 
President Jackson, on his own official responsibility as National Executive, set at 
defiance alike the power and the authority of a "sovereign State"? And can a 
Territorial Government rank with an independent State sovereignty ? Can 
border ruffianism, by any act of Congress, become entitled to respect and support, 
as a rightful law-making power from the President of the United States ? This 



11 

case is too flagrant ; the facts are too notorious. No truly independent, self- 
relying President, who understood his official prerogative, and his duty under the 
Constitution, would have hesitated to disregard even a direct act of Congress so 
tyrannical and oppressive, and appeal to his country and the world for his vindi- 
cation. 

But no such trying emergency was here presented. With the solemn decision 
of the House of Representatives, after long investigation, that the Legislature of 
Kansas had no authority, and that its laws were no laws; with that direct, posi- 
tive, and unimpeachable evidence before you, — your Memorialists cannot but 
express their surprise that you have relied upon your construction of indirect, 
inconclusive acts of that same body as evidence of the authority of that Legisla- 
ture. They know of no rule of law by which you can set up constructive, 
inferential evidence against direct and positive evidence from the same source. 
But this proof you pass over in utter silence. 

Alluding to the condition of the Territory, you speak of the course which 
you adopted as "absolutely necessary;" and ask, whether "you would not have 
been justly condemned had you left" what you assume to be the government and 
its administration " impotent," and thus have suffered it to become an object of 
contempt in the eyes of the people. Our first reply to this view of the case is 
as before : There was no (Territorial) government in Kansas to be executed, as 
you suppose. And again : we say, the usurped government ought to have been 
rendered impotent, and to have become an object of contempt in the eyes of the 
people, as it has become. But further: Congress has passed a law for the esta- 
blishment of a government in this Territory, with this formal and positive expla- 
nation, that the people (in the Territory) be left perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way. Why, then, could not a 
Governor of Kansas have been appointed at any time, acting under your 
authority, and with an army under his control, who would. have suppressed all 
internal violence and contention, and " left the people free to form and regulate 
their domestic institutions," &c, as well as employ the army to act the absurd 
and farcical part of a posse comitatus, to enforce, under your direction, territorial 
laws which had no pretence of authority ? Without saying who were, or who 
were not, the responsible originators of the troubles in Kansas, can it be doubted 
that the President, long before this time, by the course now suggested, or some 
other, might have put an end to these troubles? Has he not power to "take care 
that the laws," and, of course, that the law of Congress respecting Kansas, " be 
faithfully executed"? 

You have introduced several topics into your Reply, as that of slavery, the 
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott, with others, on which 
your Memorialists have said nothing in their Memorial, and on which they intend 
to say nothing now, except to express their dissent from your opinions. 

It is needless to prolong this discussion. Your whole vindication, if it has 
any ground, rests, in the view of your Memorialists, upon one palpably false 
assumption : That whatever claims to be a government de facto, without a pre- 
tence of its proceeding from any rightful law-making power, is entitled to your 
support. The world has not seen a usurpation which this principle would not 
sanction. If adopted in the administration of our Government, it must involve, 
sooner or later, its destruction. 

Pardon now, if need be, the plain and respectful earnestness of your Memo- 
rialists in unfolding what they consider false principles in your positions on the 
present subject. They speak of no want of honesty in your opinions, nor of 
sincerity in your avowal of them ; of no want of patriotism on your part, nor 
yet of that higher principle which God approves. They speak only of what they 
consider error in your reasonings, and of its consequences in political evils. They 
judge not the heart. They have not imputed to you any violation of your oath of 



12 .2221 ° F EGRESS 




office, as you have thought fit to charge. Their language s 
said, " By the foregoing, you are held up as violating," & 
spoken of is shown, hy the connection, to be the claim c 016 068^991^?' 

President of the United States is employing, through him (Walker;, mi «*~ V7 . ^» 
purpose of which is to force the people of Kansas to obey laws not their own, nor 
of the United States, but laws which — it is notorious, and established upon evi- 
dence — they never made, and rulers they never elected." This claim of Gov. 
Walker, if admitted by you in its full extent, and admitted on the ground of making 
the general principle mentioned above a universal one, — thus applying a mere rule 
of international law to the internal government of this country, — would, in our 
view, involve the most serious imputations upon any Chief Magistrate. But you 
had not at that time, so far as we are aware, given any public sanction to that claim ; 
and the Memorial, therefore, did not contain the imputation you supposed. 

The Memorialists have dwelt on the error referred to above, as they regard 
it, not merely on account of its fatal tendency, and the calamities which have 
actually resulted from it, but also because they are confident that you, in common 
with many of your honest fellow-citizens, have overlooked one essential principle 
in assuming that the ruffian usurpation in Kansas is "an established government." 
Be assured they intend to withhold no tribute due to your intellectual eminence 
or moral character. They believe, however, that many errors and misconceptions 
are compatible with the highest mental culture and intellectual ability. 

Your Memorialists have spoken earnestly, because they deeply deplore the 
adoption of a principle which leads to the mal-administration of so perfect a 
system of government as that which our fathers, by their wisdom, their prayers, 
and their blood, have given to their posterity. They cannot believe in the unap- 
proachable infallibility of their rulers under this system of true liberty ; and, 
while tliey would honor them in the fear of God, they are confident that neither 
they, nor even " kings, have the right divine to govern wrong." They hope for 
the continuance of our National Government, and for its wise and effective admi- 
nistration in guarding the privileges and blessings it is so fitted to afford and 
perpetuate. They wait with hope for the emancipation of the nations, and of all 
men, by the light and power of the example of such a government. They trust 
that no unauthorized mode of its administration will cause it to fail of its design ; 
and that you may yet see that in this respect one false principle, if adhered to, 
must prove a principle of weakness and decay, — a sure prelude to the end of 
all our greatness, happiness, and glory, — a death-spot in the tree of liberty, 
whose leaves, like those of the tree of life, are for the healing of the nations. 



Nathaniel W. Taylor. 
Theo. 1). Woolsey. 
Henry Button. 
Charles L. English. 
John H. Brockwat. 
Eli W. Blake. 
Benj. Stlliman, jun. 
Thomas A. Thacher. 
J. A. Davenport. 

WORTHTNGTON J LoOKER. 

PHELOS Blake. 
Amos Townsend. 
James Brewster. 
Eli Ives. 



S. G. Hubbard. 
John A. Blake. 
Wm. H. Russell. 
A. N. Skinner. 
Charles Robinson. 
Joel Hawes. 
G. A. Calhoun. 
Leonard Bacon. 

H. C. ElNGSLET. 

Benj. Silliman, sen. 
Chaules his. 

JOSIAH W. GlBBS. 

James E. Babcoce. 
Alfred Walker. 



Hawley Olmstead. 



BOSTON : PRINTED ]i1 JOUN WILSON AND SON, 22, SCHOOL STREET. 



L1BRA RY OF CONGRESS 



016 088 9913 



